Mangrove Forests

Christianson et al., 2022

8.3

93

Cooley et al., 2022

13.7

41

13.8

31-34

5.5

12-103

Cooley et al., 2022

5.5

13

2.2-40.0

5-87

Seagrass Meadows

Christianson et al., 2022

16.0

35-76

Cooley et al., 2022

16.0

35

48-112

In addition to science-related activities, previous Congresses have authorized federal agencies to have a role in conserving some existing coastal and marine ecosystems. For example, previous Congresses and federal agencies have created marine sanctuaries and refuges for various purposes, including habitat conservation, that may have the co-benefit of preserving coastal blue carbon.⁷² As another example, the 118^th Congress passed the Coastal Habitat Conservation Act of 2023 (P.L. 118-138) directing certain federal agencies to develop and implement monitoring protocols to track coastal ecosystem restoration. Previous Congresses also have authorized federal agencies to provide funding to nonfederal entities through grant programs to restore degraded ecosystems or prevent future land use changes of existing ecosystems.⁷³ These actions, when applied to coastal blue carbon ecosystems, may help these ecosystems remain a carbon sink and not a source. In many instances, carbon sequestration is not the main goal and often is secondary to habitat conservation for species or other benefits.

In its early January 2025 draft report, DOE noted that the development of maps and remote sensing products to indicate wetland management and hydrologic condition was a key federal goal.¹⁰⁵ Other stakeholders have expressed interest in mapping coastal blue carbon ecosystems, as described in the sections below.¹⁰⁶ The geographic coverage of coastal blue carbon ecosystems has been used to estimate of GHG emissions and sinks. For example, EPA has considered the geographic coverage of coastal wetlands, including some coastal blue carbon ecosystems, in its annual national inventory of GHG emissions and sinks.¹⁰⁷ Federal and nonfederal decisionmakers may use this knowledge to prioritize areas for restoration and conservation projects, if they decide to support such efforts. In contrast, other stakeholders might argue that these mapping initiatives could be used to limit future infrastructure development or increase regulation of certain coastal areas.

Some Members of previous Congresses have expressed interest in enhancing the mapping of coastal blue carbon ecosystems for several purposes. In the 118^th Congress, some Members introduced bills that would have provided direction to NSTC to establish a new IWG for producing and maintaining a national-level mapping of coastal blue carbon ecosystems.¹⁰⁸ As an alternative to establishing a new IWG, Congress may consider codifying existing working groups or committees that are developing a national map and inventory of coastal blue carbon ecosystems (refer to "Federal Agency Research Coordination and Collaboration on Coastal Blue Carbon Ecosystems," above). For example, the SERC Coastal Carbon Research Coordination Network developed and maintains the Coastal Carbon Atlas, a web-based global tidal wetland database, and the Blue Carbon Data Inventory, a database of U.S. coastal blue carbon soil information.¹⁰⁹ Congress also may consider conducting oversight and investigations to inform any potential actions it might take to reverse, amend, or codify in statute actions taken by the Trump Administration to eliminate the USGCRP, which coordinates some IWGs, as discussed above.

Some Members have proposed that NOAA identify or inventory U.S. coastal areas with CDR-related purposes.¹¹⁰ For example, in the 118^th Congress, several bills would have directed NOAA to "carry out mapping and evaluation of coastal marine ecosystems for carbon dioxide removal potential," in collaboration with NASA.¹¹¹ Others would have directed NOAA to conduct an inventory of coastal and other areas suitable for mCDR research.¹¹² An additional proposal would have directed NOAA to identify coastal and marine areas of "particularly high potential for carbon sequestration and high rates of carbon storage" as well as "blue carbon areas of significance," as defined by the bill.¹¹³

Satellite Observations for Coastal Blue Carbon Ecosystem Mapping and Congressional Interest

In the 118^th Congress, some Members introduced legislation that would have directed certain federal agencies to use satellite observations for coastal blue carbon ecosystem mapping activities. For example, H.R. 5457 and S. 2812 would have established a whole-of-government approach to support carbon dioxide removal (CDR) research and development. The bills included two provisions about the application of satellite observations.

• §301 of Title III would have directed the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in collaboration with NASA, to "carry out mapping and evaluation of coastal marine ecosystems for carbon dioxide removal potential."
• §801 of Title VIII would have directed NASA, using satellite imagery, to "carry out mapping and evaluation of coastal marine ecosystems for carbon dioxide removal potential—including (i) wetlands; (ii) peatlands; and (iii) seagrass beds."

As an alternative to federal satellite systems, Earth observations may be acquired through commercial data purchase programs. Previous Administrations and Congresses (e.g., §301, Title III, of H.R. 6093 in the 118^th Congress) have shown interest in commercial data purchase programs and partnerships between federal agencies and the U.S. commercial space industry. Several federal agencies have purchased Earth observation remote sensing data for various purposes, from science to national intelligence, but the terms of those purchases, unless renegotiated, may not allow use of the data for purposes beyond their original scope (e.g., mapping of coastal ecosystems). Congress may consider whether these purchases and partnerships, in some cases if amended, could be used for mapping coastal blue carbon ecosystems. When negotiating new or renegotiating existing end-user license agreements, federal agencies and commercial providers may face consideration of both scientific factors (e.g., data use and sharing) and commercial interests (i.e., higher prices for greater data usage).

Members of Congress have not introduced legislation related to the application of satellite observations or commercial data purchase programs for coastal blue carbon mapping efforts in the 119^th Congress.

Congress might consider whether to support or change existing efforts or to authorize new efforts to conserve, restore, and create coastal blue carbon ecosystems.

Some stakeholders have supported actions that aim to maintain or increase CO₂ sequestration in coastal blue carbon ecosystems.¹¹⁴ These actions aim to maintain or grow carbon sink capacity and include

• conserving existing blue carbon ecosystems;
• restoring degraded coastal blue carbon ecosystems; and
• creating new or expanding existing coastal blue carbon ecosystems into areas within their environmental thresholds that currently do not have these ecosystems.

If Congress is interested in increasing the conservation and restoration of existing or creating new coastal blue carbon ecosystems, it could consider several policy approaches. Congress could indirectly support carbon sequestration in coastal blue carbon ecosystems by reauthorizing and funding existing programs that conserve, restore, and create coastal blue carbon ecosystems, such as NOAA's Community-Based Habitat Restoration Program.¹¹⁸ Additionally, Congress could amend statutes or direct agencies to consider or prioritize carbon sequestration in existing coastal blue carbon ecosystem-related programs or appropriations laws.¹¹⁹ Alternatively, Congress could support coastal blue carbon sequestration by directing agencies to create new restoration programs to support the conservation, restoration, and creation of coastal blue carbon ecosystems.¹²⁰

Congress also might consider some of the complexities of conserving, restoring, and creating coastal blue carbon ecosystems when deciding whether or how to address this issue. Efforts to address coastal blue carbon ecosystems are complex due to multiple factors, such as land ownership (e.g., private or public) and competing priorities for coastal lands.¹²¹ For example, existing federal grant programs that support conservation, restoration, or expansion of coastal blue ecosystems often require public access to such ecosystems, a potential issue for private landowners. Alternatives that Congress might consider include supporting restoration on non-private lands or soliciting easements for access from private landowners. These options may pose fiscal considerations for Congress that may or may not align with the Trump Administration's aims to reduce federal spending. In addition, the priorities under these federal programs may compete with the priorities of other coastal stakeholders, raising questions regarding how to weigh competing priorities for development, species and habitat protection, recreation, carbon sequestration, and other ecosystem services.

Further, some in Congress may question whether investments in coastal areas are prudent due to the uncertainty of how these ecosystems may change in the long term and uncertainty regarding their CDR potential.¹²² Efforts to conserve, restore, and create new coastal blue carbon ecosystems may face consideration of current and projected environmental stressors and changes to coastal areas due to the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, sea level rise, and ocean acidification, among other issues.¹²³

Some stakeholders and research findings assert that location-specific measurements of coastal blue carbon stocks and sequestration rates are needed.¹²⁴ Location-specific field measurements of carbon stocks and sequestration rates might be more accurate than generalized estimates that span a region or several ecosystems. Further, location-specific measurements might reveal specific factors affecting ecosystems relevant for implementing policies, such as constructing accurate national carbon inventories or identifying priority coastal blue carbon ecosystems for conservation and restoration efforts. An early January 2025 DOE draft report noted a need to develop measurement and monitoring frameworks through research, technology development, and computer modeling, at the project and jurisdictional levels, as well as improved and novel monitoring approaches for some ecosystems, such as seagrasses.¹²⁵ A stakeholder group recommended the development of inexpensive sensors and machine learning techniques to monitor the outcomes of coastal blue carbon ecosystem restoration and creation.¹²⁶ The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) also identified that basic research on the fate of carbon sequestered and stored in coastal blue carbon ecosystems "will address some of the key uncertainties in understanding and using coastal ecosystems as a [negative emissions technology]."¹²⁷ For example, a 2024 research study of Bahamian seagrass meadows (the largest seagrass meadow ecosystem in the world) revealed lower-than-predicted carbon stock capacity.¹²⁸ The researchers attributed this finding to multiple environmental and human factors.¹²⁹ These findings could be interpreted as evidence of need for more location-specific measurements of coastal blue carbon.

Some Members of Congress have expressed interest in directing federal agencies to improve estimates of coastal blue carbon through basic research.¹³⁰ Other Members have considered directing NOAA to award grants for mCDR-related research projects.¹³¹ In considering the potential value of extramural research, Congress could require that coastal blue carbon data collected via federally funded extramural research be shared with an IWG or a data management entity (e.g., SERC) that addresses coastal blue carbon; such a requirement might increase the knowledge base of coastal blue carbon ecosystems and provide a greater return on invested federal resources.

Some analyses have found that improved carbon stock estimates and sequestration rates, including the development and standardization of how data are collected, managed, and reported, have helped U.S. coastal states better understand the CDR potential of their coastal blue carbon ecosystems.¹³² This knowledge may help managers set measurable conservation and restoration goals for these habitats. Congress has considered initiatives and programs that aim to monitor coastal ecosystems, which may influence CDR in such ecosystems.¹³³ Congress may consider devising authorizing language to explicitly require mapping as part of monitoring protocols. However, some stakeholders have found that most carbon sequestration rates are overestimated for coastal blue carbon ecosystems; they argue that the overestimation could cause some decisionmakers and managers to overlook the implementation of other mitigation actions.¹³⁴

Federal agencies have taken on various roles in conducting coastal blue carbon science. Some stakeholders note that establishing and maintaining research projects, partnerships, and cross-federal collaborations remains challenging because of different agency missions and mandates, among other things.¹³⁵ Some may argue that federal agencies need more well-defined directives related to coastal blue carbon science and a clear mandate to coordinate across the government to reach certain goals. Others may argue that federal agencies should devote fewer resources to coastal blue carbon ecosystem science, including interagency coordination efforts—leaving such efforts to coastal states and localities that often have jurisdiction over, and therefore a greater vested interest in, these ecosystems. For example, as noted above, the Trump Administration made changes to the contract supporting the USGCRP. Reportedly, the changes are being made to "support the congressionally-mandated program while also increasing efficiencies across the 14 agencies and advisory committee."¹³⁶ It is unclear which activities coordinated by the USGCRP may continue, and whether its subgroups focused directly or indirectly on coastal blue carbon activities will continue to exist under reduced USGCRP staffing.

Congress might consider options to more fully define federal agency roles in studying coastal blue carbon.¹³⁷ At the same time, Congress also may deliberate whether to create a new or designate an existing federal program or agency to lead coastal blue carbon science and foster collaboration among agencies conducting related science. This program or agency could track and coordinate agency activities, administer funding for coastal blue carbon science activities, and convene an interagency working group and/or advisory board, among other actions.¹³⁸ An advisory group associated with the program also could provide recommendations that might lead to changes in long-standing federal agency programs and activities.

Federal agencies and nonfederal entities have collaborated on coastal blue carbon science activities in multiple ways, as described above. NASEM has argued that public engagement results in increased opportunity for dialogue, potential improvement in research quality, and greater legitimacy and trust by the public.¹⁴⁰ While some federal agencies have stated they intend to continue to solicit nonfederal participation and engagement in coastal blue carbon ecosystem science,¹⁴¹ others have argued that such collaboration should be required. For instance, DOE stated in its early January 2025 report that a robust national CDR program "can and must be done while strengthening engagement with communities and stakeholders that could participate in or be affected by CDR, including environmental organizations, Tribal nations, labor unions and workforce development entities, industry, and academia."¹⁴²

Congress may consider whether to require federal agencies to work with nonfederal entities on coastal blue carbon science through various mechanisms. Policies to consider could include the establishment of working groups with federal and nonfederal participants, the creation of nonfederal advisory councils that could provide policy recommendations to federal agencies, and continued funding of nonfederal research. Other stakeholders may question the additional emphasis on federal and nonfederal collaboration and whether such collaboration is necessary to advance the science. These stakeholders may argue that the existing efforts are adequate, that there are competing priorities of higher importance, that additional collaboration may slow down efforts, and that a cost-share requirement among parties may create a barrier to participation, among other reasons. For example, as noted above, the Trump Administration has made changes to funding and staffing for the USGCRP, which included a nonfederal advisory committee,¹⁴³ and directed federal agencies to identify "unnecessary" federal advisory committees across the government to terminate.¹⁴⁴

In addition to domestic nonfederal collaboration, some stakeholders have argued for greater collaboration between the United States and international research communities, either through existing or new agreements. For example, NASEM states that CDR research should be international so that it can cultivate "social legitimacy," is applicable to multiple cultural and geographic contexts, and addresses the priorities of communities where mCDR may be used.¹⁴⁵ DOE in its early January 2025 report added that "international collaboration can rapidly accelerate technology advancement by distributing workloads for research, development, and demonstration."¹⁴⁶ As noted above, some federal agencies have worked with international partners in working groups or on individual projects.¹⁴⁷ For example, the Blue Carbon Scientific Working Group aspires to create international standards, ultimately allowing data collected in various countries to be comparable and useful in a regional or global context. ¹⁴⁸ Some stakeholders may contend that existing efforts are adequate, that there are competing priorities of higher importance, and that additional collaboration may slow down efforts. For example, the Trump Administration has cut funding to some projects in other fields with international collaborators and has asked collaborators to describe how projects align with the Administration's priorities.¹⁴⁹ In light of these views, Congress could consider whether to legislate requirements that federal agencies work with international partners and provide funding to do so.¹⁵⁰

Congress may consider whether existing funding is sufficient to address its priorities for coastal blue carbon science or if funding should be increased or decreased. U.S. federal coastal blue carbon science activities occur under various authorities and budget line items, making it difficult to estimate how much Congress has appropriated for blue carbon activities and how much federal agencies have spent on such activities. Some agencies, such as DOE, have developed a CDR-focused cross-agency crosscut.¹⁵¹ Some groups have advocated for a crosscut budget to be created that covers all U.S. agencies.¹⁵² Congress may consider directing federal agencies to estimate their coastal blue carbon science-related proposed or actual spending through crosscut budgets, or other mechanisms, at the agency level or across agencies.¹⁵³

Some stakeholders contend that increased funding to certain federal agencies or specific federal programs would improve understanding of coastal blue carbon ecosystems. One group has advocated for additional funding for NSF, and other agencies, to support fundamental research focused on understanding carbon sequestration in coastal ecosystems, such as those that support blue carbon.¹⁵⁴ In another example, NOAA identified increased funding for the agency's Coastal Change Analysis Program as a way to improve seagrass meadow mapping.¹⁵⁵ Congress could provide funding specifically for these and other agency activities.¹⁵⁶ Alternatively, it could provide appropriations to agencies for coastal blue carbon science more broadly and allow the agencies discretion in their use. Some stakeholders may argue that funding should instead support higher-priority topics.

Some stakeholders have argued for a greater federal investment in CDR research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) more broadly, rather than specific topics as recently supported in statements accompanying appropriations law.¹⁵⁷ Some experts have estimated the cost of conducting past and future coastal blue carbon research activities. For example, one group estimated the total value of CDR research grants globally for 1991-2022 to be about $2.6 billion.¹⁵⁸ The group also identified that, between 2000 and 2022, 40% of all active research grants and 59% of the research funding on CDR took place in Canada or the United States.¹⁵⁹ Research grants on coastal wetland restoration, defined by the group to include coastal ecosystems such as tidal marshes, mangroves, and seagrass meadows, made up less than 5% of the total for the United States and Canada.¹⁶⁰ Looking toward the future, NASEM estimated that basic costs of a coastal blue carbon research agenda would require at least $65 million per year for up to 20 years (approximately $1.3 billion in total) across multiple agencies.¹⁶¹ Another group estimated that $769 million would be needed over 10 years (approximately $76.9 million per year) to fund coastal blue carbon-related RD&D.¹⁶²

Some stakeholders have proposed that Congress provide new multiyear authorizations and/or appropriations to support coastal blue carbon science broadly.¹⁶³ Congress could use estimates from outside groups (as discussed above), information from an interagency or intra-agency crosscut budget focused on coastal blue carbon activities, or another mechanism to determine an appropriate amount for authorizations and appropriations. In addition, Congress may deliberate establishing or encouraging other funding mechanisms to support coastal blue carbon science, such as fees collected for certain private activities, bonds, payments for ecosystem services, ecosystem service insurance, private equity, venture capital, or others.¹⁶⁴ Some stakeholders or Members may argue that existing authorized levels of appropriations and appropriation amounts across the government are adequate or too high and that the federal government should shift support to other priorities. For example, as discussed above, the Trump Administration has made changes to existing federal funding for certain projects and topics and has signaled its interest in lowering government expenditures overall.¹⁶⁵

Bill Number

Bill Name

Committee of Referral

Related to

H.R. 1196

Don Young Restoration Grants for Coastlines and Fisheries Act of 2023

Natural Resources; Transportation and Infrastructure

Blue carbon

—

Coastal Habitat Conservation Act of 2023

Natural Resources

Blue carbon

S. 1381

H.R. 5457

Carbon Dioxide Removal Research and Development Act of 2023

SST; Agriculture; Natural Resources; Transportation and Infrastructure; Energy and Commerce

Blue carbon, mCDR

S. 2812

H.R. 7106

National Oceans and Coastal Security Improvements Act of 2024

Natural Resources; SST

Blue carbon

—

H.R. 9912

Coastal Restoration Act of 2024

Natural Resources; SST; Administration; Energy and Commerce

Blue carbon

—

H.R. 10471

ReSCUE Oceans Act

SST; Natural Resources

Blue carbon, mCDR

S. 5629

H.R. 10491

Blue Carbon Protection Act

Natural Resources; SST

Blue carbon

—

S. 1381

Coastal Habitat Conservation Act of 2023

Environment and Public Works

Blue carbon

S. 1576

CREST Act of 2023

Energy and Natural Resources

Blue carbon

—

S. 2002

CREATE Act of 2023

Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Blue carbon, mCDR

—

S. 2812

Carbon Dioxide Removal Research and Development Act of 2023

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

Blue carbon, mCDR

H.R. 5457

S. 3785

Working Waterfronts Act of 2024

Finance

Blue carbon

—

S. 5369

Carbon Dioxide Removal Investment Act

Finance

mCDR

—

S. 5629

ReSCUE Oceans Act

Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Blue carbon, mCDR

H.R. 10471

Footnotes

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), "Chapter 2: Coastal Blue Carbon," in Negative Emissions Technologies and Reliable Sequestration: A Research Agenda (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2019), p. 70 (hereinafter NASEM, "Chapter 2: Coastal Blue Carbon").

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), "Fast Facts: Blue Carbon," https://perma.cc/F48G-4HNK. The global carbon cycle is the exchange, or flux, of carbon among the atmosphere, ocean, land surface, and living things. For an overview of the carbon cycle, see CRS Report R47214, The Carbon Cycle: Key Component of the Climate System, with Implications for Policy, by Jonathan D. Haskett.

NOAA, "Understanding Blue Carbon," September 29, 2022, https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/understanding-blue-carbon, archived April 4, 2025, at https://perma.cc/NC9H-E23R (hereinafter NOAA, "Understanding Blue Carbon").

Tidal marsh includes salt marsh, often used interchangeably. However, not all tidal marshes are salt marshes. Tidal marshes lie more inland and have lower salinity levels than salt marshes but are still under a tidal influence. Some stakeholders include salt marshes (because marsh salinity influences greenhouse gas fluxes) as part of coastal blue carbon ecosystems, whereas other stakeholders include tidal marshes generally. For example, see Maria Fernanda Adame et al., "All Tidal Wetlands Are Blue Carbon Ecosystems," BioScience, vol. 74, no. 4 (April 2024), pp. 253-268.

Seagrass bed is another commonly used term. This report uses the term seagrass meadows to refer to this type of coastal blue carbon ecosystem.

NOAA, "Protecting Coastal Blue Carbon Through Habitat Conservation," https://perma.cc/2PFH-96WB.

Sarah Cooley et al., "Chapter 3: Oceans and Coastal Ecosystems and Their Services," in Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, eds. Hans-Otto Pörtner et al., 2022, p. 464 (hereinafter Cooley et al., "Chapter 3: Oceans and Coastal Ecosystems"); and NASEM, "Chapter 2: Coastal Blue Carbon," p. 48.

For example, Nathalie Hilmi et al., "The Role of Blue Carbon in Climate Change Mitigation and Carbon Stock Conservation," Frontiers in Climate, vol. 3 (2021), pp. 1-18.

For example, see National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), "Mapping the Roots of Mangrove Loss," https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/147142/mapping-the-roots-of-mangrove-loss.

For example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) identified that manatees along the Atlantic Coast of Florida have experienced a large and ongoing mortality event associated with the loss of seagrass meadows and other environmental factors. FWS, Budget Justification and Performance Information Fiscal Year 2025, p. ES-23.

For example, NOAA, "Coastal Wetland Habitat," https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/habitat-conservation/coastal-wetland-habitat, archived April 4, 2025, at https://perma.cc/7CGN-2YP6.

Erik Kristensen et al., "Predicting Climate Mitigation Through Carbon Burial in Blue Carbon Ecosystems—Challenges and Pitfalls," Global Change Biology, vol. 31 (2025), pp. 1-15, see p. 9. Hereinafter Kristensen et al., "Predicting Climate Mitigation Through Carbon Burial in Blue Carbon Ecosystems."

White House Ocean Policy Committee, Ocean Climate Action Plan: A Report by the Ocean Policy Committee, March 2023, p. 47. Hereinafter White House Ocean Policy Committee, Ocean Climate Action Plan.

In 2013, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released guidance for how countries participating in the Paris Agreement should account for coastal blue carbon in their NDCs (NOAA, "Understanding Blue Carbon"). On January 20, 2025, President Trump directed the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations to "immediately submit formal written notification of the United States' withdrawal from the Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change." Executive Order (E.O.) 14162 of January 20, 2025, "Putting America First in International Environmental Agreements," 90 Federal Register 8455, January 30, 2025.

For example, H.R. 5457 and S. 2812 in the 118^th Congress. CRS did not identify related bills introduced in the 119^th Congress as of April 24, 2025.

NOAA, "Coastal Blue Carbon."

Cross et al., Strategy for NOAA Carbon Dioxide Removal Research, p. 20.

For example, Carlos M. Duarte et al., "Major Role of Marine Vegetation on the Oceanic Carbon Cycle," Biogeosciences, vol. 2 (2005), pp. 173-180, see p. 178.

Cross et al., Strategy for NOAA Carbon Dioxide Removal Research, p. 45.

Christine L. May, "Focus on Blue Carbon," in Fifth National Climate Assessment, eds. Allison R. Crimmins et al. (Washington, DC: U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2023), p. F5-3. Hereinafter NCA5, "Focus on Blue Carbon."

Peter I. Macreadie et al., "Blue Carbon as a Natural Climate Solution," Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, vol. 2 (2021), p. 826. Hereinafter Macreadie et al., "Blue Carbon as a Natural Climate Solution."

Coastal blue carbon is estimated to cost $10-$50 per ton of CO₂ removed. Cross et al., Strategy for NOAA Carbon Dioxide Removal Research, p. 22.

For instance, ocean alkalinity enhancement, a marine CO₂ removal approach, has a co-benefit of mitigating ocean acidification. Seagrass meadows also have been shown to buffer against ocean acidification. Ocean acidification can harm certain marine species and impact coastal fisheries and food supply for humans. Cross et al., Strategy for NOAA Carbon Dioxide Removal Research, p. 39. For more information about ocean acidification, see CRS Report R47300, Ocean Acidification: Frequently Asked Questions, by Caitlin Keating-Bitonti and Eva Lipiec.

Nadine Mengis et al., "Counting (on) Blue Carbon—Challenges and Ways Forward for Carbon Accounting of Ecosystem-Based Carbon Removal in Marine Environments," PLOS Climate, vol. 2, no. 8 (2023), p. e0000148; and Read Porter et al., "Legal Issues Affecting Blue Carbon Projects on Publicly-Owned Coastal Wetlands," Restore America's Estuaries and the Marine Affairs Institute, February 2020, https://estuaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Legal-Issues-Affecting-Blue-Carbon-Projects.pdf.

Cooley et al., "Chapter 3: Oceans and Coastal Ecosystems," p. 464.

NOAA, "Coastal Blue Carbon."

Macreadie et al., "Blue Carbon as a Natural Climate Solution," p. 827.

The salinity level of a marsh is negatively correlated to methane emissions (methane emissions tend to decrease as salinity increases) and can influence whether a particular marsh acts as a net carbon sink (sequestering more carbon than it emits) or source (emitting more carbon than it sequesters). Email correspondence with Nicholas Institute for Energy, Environment & Sustainability, Duke University, July 3, 2024; and NOAA, "What Is a Salt Marsh?," https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/saltmarsh.html, archived April 4, 2025, at https://perma.cc/VMH8-U9U2.

Panela L. Reynolds, "Seagrass and Seagrass Beds," Smithsonian Institution, https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/plants-algae/seagrass-and-seagrass-beds.

Elizabeth Mcleod et al., "A Blueprint for Blue Carbon: Toward an Improved Understanding of the Role of Vegetated Coastal Habitats in Sequestering CO₂," Frontiers in Ecology, vol. 9, no. 10 (June 2011), p. 554. Hereinafter Mcleod et al., "Blueprint for Blue Carbon."

NASEM, Coastal Blue Carbon Approaches, p. 2. In general, soils are characterized by a depth profile (known as horizons) reflecting the products of in situ weathering and are capable of supporting vegetation. Sediments are unconsolidated particles that have been removed from the place where they were originally weathered and redeposited elsewhere. Sediments can subsequently be weathered in situ to produce soils. See, "Soils, Sediments, and Geomorphology," in The Archaeologist's Laboratory. Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology, eds. M. A. Jochim and R. S. Dickens (Boston, MA: Springer), p. 235.

Macreadie et al., "Blue Carbon as a Natural Climate Solution," p. 826.

Cross et al., Strategy for NOAA Carbon Dioxide Removal Research, p. 45.

Mcleod et al., "Blueprint for Blue Carbon," p. 555.

NOAA, "Understanding Blue Carbon."

D. Herr and E. Landis, Coastal Blue Carbon Ecosystems. Opportunities for Nationally Determined Contributions. Policy Brief, The Nature Conservancy and International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2016, p. 6, https://www.nature.org/content/dam/tnc/nature/en/documents/BC_NDCs_FINAL.pdf. Hereinafter D. Herr and E. Landis, Coastal Blue Carbon Ecosystems.

D. Herr and E. Landis, Coastal Blue Carbon Ecosystems, pp. 829-830.

NCA5, "Focus on Blue Carbon," p. F5-3; and Christopher N. Janousek et al., "Blue Carbon Stocks Along the Pacific Coast of North America Are Mainly Driven by Local Rather Than Regional Factors," Global Biogeochemical Cycles, vol. 39 (2025), pp. 1-23, see. p. 19. Hereinafter Janousek et al., "Blue Carbon Stocks Along the Pacific Coast of North America."

Mcleod et al., "Blueprint for Blue Carbon," p. 554; and NOAA, "Understanding Blue Carbon."

NASEM, "Chapter 2: Coastal Blue Carbon," p. 48; and Macreadie et al., "Blue Carbon as a Natural Climate Solution," p. 827.

Isotopes are members of a family of an element that all have the same number of protons but different numbers of neutrons. Some isotopic analyses can be used as radiometric dating methods. For example, "radiocarbon dating uses the decay of a radioactive isotope of carbon [carbon-14, made up of 6 protons and 8 neutrons] to measure time and date objects containing carbon-bearing material" (Irka Hajdas et al., "Radiocarbon Dating," Nature Reviews Methods Primers, vol. 1, no. 62 [September 9, 2021], pp. 1-26). Radiocarbon dating is a useful tool for determining the age of a specimen formed over the past 55,000 years. Department of Energy (DOE), "DOE Explains…Isotopes," https://www.energy.gov/science/doe-explainsisotopes.

DOE, Carbon Dioxide Removal: Purpose, Approaches, and Recommendations, Draft for Public Comment, January 16, 2025, p. 31. Hereinafter DOE, Draft CDR Purpose, Approaches, and Recommendations. For example, these agencies supported the research published in Kerryless Rogers et al., "Wetland Carbon Storage Controlled by Millennial-Scale Variation in Relative Sea-Level Rise," Nature, vol. 567 (2019), pp. 91-95.

For example, Liangguan Jia et al., "Prediction of Wetland Soil Carbon Storage Based on Near Infrared Hyperspectral Imaging and Deep Learning," Infrared Physics & Technology, vol. 139 (June 2024).

DOE, Draft CDR Purpose, Approaches, and Recommendations, p. 31.

Kristensen et al., "Predicting Climate Mitigation Through Carbon Burial in Blue Carbon Ecosystems," p. 1.

For more information about the U.S. government's role in coastal and ocean mapping, see CRS Report R47623, Frequently Asked Questions: Mapping of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Waters, coordinated by Caitlin Keating-Bitonti.

For example, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), "Case Study: Monitoring Coastal Change via Satellite Imagery at Regional Scale in the Pacific Northwest," March 21, 2024, https://www.usgs.gov/programs/cmhrp/news/case-study-monitoring-coastal-change-satellite-imagery-regional-scale-pacific. Hereinafter USGS, "Case Study."

USGS, "Case Study."

Dana Lanceman et al., "Blue Carbon Ecosystem Monitoring Using Remote Sensing Reveals Wetland Restoration Pathways," Frontiers in Environmental Science, vol. 10 (2022).

The large range is due to uncertainties in the distribution of seagrass meadows and tidal marshes. Macreadie et al., "Blue Carbon as a Natural Climate Solution," p. 827.

Macreadie et al., "Blue Carbon as a Natural Climate Solution," p. 827, and Supplemental Data accompanying Brian Buma et al., "Expert Review of the Science Underlying Nature-Based Climate Solutions," Nature Climate Change, vol. 14 (February 20, 2024), pp. 402-406 (hereinafter Buma et al., "Expert Review of the Science").

Christine Bertram et al., "The Blue Carbon Wealth of Nations," Nature Climate Change, vol. 11 (August 2021), pp. 704-709. Hereinafter Bertram et al., "Blue Carbon Wealth."

Bertram et al., "Blue Carbon Wealth." p. 705.

A study of coastal blue carbon ecosystems along the Pacific coast of North America identified that "[carbon] stocks were highest in woody-dominated tidal wetlands …, suggesting a need to increase conservation efforts on existing mangrove forests." Janousek et al., "Blue Carbon Stocks Along the Pacific Coast of North America," p. 19.

Chuancheng Fu et al., "Substantial Blue Carbon Sequestration in the World's Largest Seagrass Meadow," Communications Earth & Environment, vol. 4, no. 474 (December 13, 2023), pp. 1-9. Hereinafter Fu et al., "Substantial Blue Carbon Sequestration."

Mcleod et al., "Blueprint for Blue Carbon," p. 555; and Janousek et al., "Blue Carbon Stocks Along the Pacific Coast of North America," p. 1.

Atsushi Watanabe et al., Blue Carbon Roadmap: Carbon Captured by the World's Coastal and Ocean Ecosystems, The Innovation for Cool Earth Forum, p. 65. Hereinafter Watanabe et al., Blue Carbon Roadmap.

To be implemented by agencies such as DOE, FWS, NASA, the National Park Service, NOAA, and USGS. White House Ocean Policy Committee, Ocean Climate Action Plan, pp. 49-50.

White House Ocean Policy Committee, National Strategy for a Sustainable Ocean Economy, June 2024, pp. 21-22.

Previous Congress have directed the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with other agency heads, to carry out a program on research, development, testing, evaluation, study, and demonstration of technologies related to blue carbon capture and direct air capture. The statute defines blue carbon capture as "the removal of dissolved carbon dioxide from seawater through engineered or inorganic processes, including filters, membranes, or phase change systems" (10 U.S.C. §4001 note). Under this definition, blue carbon ecosystems would not qualify as blue carbon capture.

33 U.S.C. §3704(c)(3). For example, see National Science and Technology Council, Committee on Environment, Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology, Interagency Working Group on Ocean Acidification, Strategic Plan for Federal Research and Monitoring of Ocean Acidification, September 2023.

42 U.S.C. §17272. Resulting reports include USGS, Baseline and Projected Future Carbon Storage and Greenhouse-Gas Fluxes in Ecosystems in the Great Plains Region of the United States, USGS Professional Paper 1787, 2011; USGS, Baseline and Projected Future Carbon Storage and Greenhouse-Gas Fluxes in Ecosystems of the Western United States, USGS Professional Paper 1797, 2012; USGS, Baseline and Projected Future Carbon Storage and Greenhouse-Gas Fluxes in Ecosystems of the Eastern United States, USGS Professional Paper 1804, 2014; and USGS, Baseline and Projected Future Carbon Storage and Greenhouse-Gas Fluxes in Ecosystems of Alaska, USGS Professional Paper 1826, 2016.

The report identified the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. §§1451 et seq.); Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. §§1531 et seq.); Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act of 2009 (33 U.S.C. §§3701 et seq.); Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act of 2009 (33 U.S.C. §§3601 et seq.); Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. §§1801 et seq.); Marine Mammal Protection Act (6 U.S.C. §§1361-1423h); and Oceans Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. §857-19 note) (DOE, Draft CDR Purpose, Approaches, and Recommendations, pp. 47-48, and 63). Congress directed the Secretary of Energy to establish a task force and prepare the report in P.L. 116-260, §5002.

For example, NOAA's Ocean Acidification Program. Cross et al., Strategy for NOAA Carbon Dioxide Removal Research; and DOE, Draft CDR Purpose, Approaches, and Recommendations.

"Explanatory Statement Submitted by Sen. Murray, Chair of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, Regarding H.R. 4366, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024," Congressional Record, vol. 170, No. 39 (March 5, 2024), p. S1401. Hereinafter "Explanatory Statement Regarding H.R. 4366," March 5, 2024.

"Explanatory Statement Regarding H.R. 4366," March 5, 2024, p. S1575. The explanatory statement used but did not define the term ocean-based carbon dioxide removal. The term is not defined in statute or regulation, although the term blue carbon capture is defined in statute but does not encompass the concept described here.

DOE, Draft CDR Purpose, Approaches, and Recommendations, pp. 29, 46-47, and 63-65.

For examples of ecosystem restoration programs, see CRS Report R47263, Ecosystem Restoration in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act: Overview and Issues for Congress, coordinated by Anna E. Normand and Pervaze A. Sheikh.

NOAA Climate Program Office, NOAA Blue Carbon Inventory Project, 2023, https://perma.cc/XD7Q-8VL7. Hereinafter NOAA, NOAA Blue Carbon Inventory Project.

NOAA, NOAA Blue Carbon Inventory Project.

Email correspondence with the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), May 22, 2024. For more about the USGCRP, see CRS Report R48478, U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP): Overview and Considerations for Congress, by Kathryn G. Kynett.

Member agencies and departments include the Departments of Agriculture (USDA), Commerce (DOC), Defense (DOD), DOE, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior (DOI), State, and Transportation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), NASA, National Science Foundation (NSF), Smithsonian Institution, and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). USGCRP, "Carbon Cycle Interagency Working Group," https://www.globalchange.gov/our-work/interagency-groups/cciwg, archived April 29, 2025, at https://perma.cc/4F7T-P96L. Hereinafter USGCRP, "CCIWG."

USGCRP, "CCIWG;" and USGCRP, "CCIWG Interagency Carbon Dioxide Removal Research Coordination Workstream," https://www.globalchange.gov/our-work/interagency-groups/cciwg/icdrc, archived April 29, 2025, at https://perma.cc/9JUR-YF3Y. Hereinafter USGCRP, "CCIWG Workstream."

The workstream includes members from DOC (National Institute of Standards and Technology [NIST] and NOAA), DOI (Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, FWS, and USGS), EPA, DOE, NASA, USAID, and USDA. USGCRP, "CCIWG Workstream."

Cross et al., Strategy for NOAA Carbon Dioxide Removal Research, p. 79. In 2024, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy stated that the group was working on an overview but did not identify a public release date (personal correspondence with the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, May 7, 2024).

U.S. Carbon Cycle Science Program (USCCP), "About the U.S. Carbon Cycle Science Program," https://www.carboncyclescience.us/about, archived April 29, 2025, at https://perma.cc/M7H5-LVAG. Hereinafter, USCCSP, "About."

USCCSP, "About."

North American Carbon Program, "Overview," https://www.nacarbon.org/nacp/overview.html.

Christopher A. Williams et al., 2022 North American Carbon Program Science Implementation Plan, 2023, p.158-159, https://opensky.ucar.edu/islandora/object/reports:81. Hereinafter Williams et al., 2022 North American Carbon Program Science Implementation Plan.

Ocean Carbon and Biogeochemistry Program (OCB), "About," https://www.us-ocb.org/about/, archived April 29, 2025, at https://perma.cc/GWC8-9EG2.

The Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal Fast Track Action Committee (mCDR FTAC) is composed of representatives from DOC (including NOAA and NIST), DOE, DOI (including the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, and USGS), EPA, NASA, NSF, Office of Naval Research, Smithsonian Institution, Department of State, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and USDA. Charter of the Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal Fast Track Action Committee of the Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology, National Science and Technology Council, September 2023, https://www.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2023-10/mCDR_FTAC_charter_2023_09_19_approved.pdf, archived April 4, 2025, at https://perma.cc/94F6-U84V. Hereinafter mCDR FTAC Charter, September 2023.

NSF, "Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal Research Plan," 89 Federal Register 13755, February 23, 2024.

mCDR FTAC, National Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal Research Strategy, November 2024. Hereinafter mCDR FTAC, National Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal Research Strategy.

mCDR FTAC Charter, September 2023.

Blue Carbon Initiative, "Blue Carbon Scientific Working Group," https://www.thebluecarboninitiative.org/scientific-working-group. Hereinafter Blue Carbon Initiative, "Blue Carbon Scientific Working Group."

Blue Carbon Initiative, "Blue Carbon Scientific Working Group."

Email correspondence with Smithsonian Institution Office of Government Relations, November 10, 2019. The Smithsonian Institution Office of Government Relations noted that the project is conducted under 20 U.S.C. §41 and 20 U.S.C. §42.

Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC), "Coastal Carbon Network," https://serc.si.edu/coastalcarbon. Hereinafter referred to as SERC, "Coastal Carbon Network."

Pacific Northwest (PNW) Blue Carbon Working Group, "Background," https://www.pnwbluecarbon.org/background and PNW Coastal Blue Carbon Working Group, Biophysical Research Framework, undated, p. 2, https://www.pnwbluecarbon.org/_files/ugd/43d666_5d46888c53094ffa91faf74084df9f25.pdf.

PNW Coastal Blue Carbon Working Group, Participants and Affiliations, April 13, 2023, https://www.pnwbluecarbon.org/_files/ugd/43d666_bd4ce40f8cc54083ae9e40f7955369a9.pdf.

RAE, "Blue Carbon National Working Group."

Coleman, "Trump Moves to Hobble."

CRS searched legislation introduced in the 118^th and 119^th Congresses on Congress.gov using the following search terms and phrases: blue carbon, marine carbon dioxide removal, marine CDR, mCDR, and ocean carbon dioxide removal; reviewed the results; and identified potential bills of interest to include in this report.

For example, see Macreadie et al., "Blue Carbon as a Natural Climate Solution," p. 830; and NASEM, Coastal Blue Carbon Approaches, p. 5.

In general, natural capital refers to stocks of natural resources that include geology, soil, air, water, and all living things (Convention on Biological Diversity, "Natural Capital," https://www.cbd.int/business/projects/natcap.shtml). Office of Science and Technology Policy, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and DOC, National Strategy to Develop Statistics for Environmental-Economic Decisions: A U.S. System of Natural Capital Accounting and Associated Environmental-Economic Statistics, January 2023, pp. 55 and 62.

White House Ocean Policy Committee, Ocean Climate Action Plan, p. 48.

DOE, Draft CDR Purpose, Approaches, and Recommendations, pp. 31-32.

For example, Watanabe et al., Blue Carbon Roadmap, p. 65.

For example, see EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, 1990-2022, EPA 430-R-24-004, 2024.

H.R. 9912 and §513 of Subtitle B of S. 3785 in the 118^th Congress.

The Blue Carbon Data Inventory provides state-level report cards ranking all coastal states and the District of Columbia on the quantity, quality, and coverage of coastal blue carbon data. SERC, "Coastal Carbon Network."

Congress's distinction between mapping, identifying, and inventorying of coastal blue carbon ecosystems is unclear in the bills, as introduced.

§301 of H.R. 5457 and S. 2812 in the 118^th Congress.

§103 of Title I of H.R. 10471 and S. 5629 in the 118^th Congress.

§2 of H.R. 10491 in the 118^th Congress.

For example, NASEM, "Chapter 2: Coastal Blue Carbon," p. 54.

White House Ocean Policy Committee, Ocean Climate Action Plan, p. 21.

White House Ocean Policy Committee, Ocean Climate Action Plan, pp. 21 and 23. An existing grant program with similar goals is the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation's (NFWF's) National Coastal Resilience Fund, which "invests in conservation projects that restore or expand natural features such as coastal marshes and wetlands … that minimize the impacts of storms and other naturally occurring events on nearby communities." NFWF receives funding for the program from EPA, NOAA, and the Department of Defense, as well as nonfederal entities (NFWF, "National Coastal Resilience Fund," https://www.nfwf.org/programs/national-coastal-resilience-fund).

DOE, Draft CDR Purpose, Approaches, and Recommendations, p. 32.

NOAA, "Community-Based Habitat Restoration," https://perma.cc/7UUG-HHG4. For other examples of existing ecosystem restoration programs, see CRS Report R47263, Ecosystem Restoration in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act: Overview and Issues for Congress, coordinated by Anna E. Normand and Pervaze A. Sheikh. For examples of federal land and water conservation designations, see CRS Report R43429, Federal Lands and Related Resources: Overview and Selected Issues for the 118th Congress.

For example, H.R. 7106 in the 118^th Congress.

For example, as in H.R. 1196, H.R. 9912, and H.R. 10491 in the 118^th Congress.

NASEM, "Chapter 2: Coastal Blue Carbon," pp. 83-85.

For example, Kristensen et al., "Predicting Climate Mitigation Through Carbon Burial in Blue Carbon Ecosystems," p. 9. Previously introduced legislation regarding some of these concerns include H.R. 9912 in the 118^th Congress.

NASEM, "Chapter 2: Coastal Blue Carbon," p. 51.

For example, see Buma et al., "Expert Review of the Science."

DOE, Draft CDR Purpose, Approaches, and Recommendations, pp. 30, 32, and 37.

Watanabe et al., Blue Carbon Roadmap, p. 66.

NASEM, "Chapter 2: Coastal Blue Carbon," p. 75.

Fu et al., "Substantial Blue Carbon Sequestration."

Fu et al., "Substantial Blue Carbon Sequestration."

For example, §§301-302 of Title III of H.R. 5457; §2 of H.R. 10491; §4 of H.R. 9912; S. 3785; S. 1576; S. 2812; and S. 5369 in the 118^th Congress.

For example, §101 of Title I of H.R. 10471; §3 of H.R. 10491; and S. 5629 in the 118^th Congress.

Alex Clayton Moya, "States Improve How They Assess Coastal Wetlands' Impact to Reduce Climate Pollution," Pew Charitable Trusts, August 20, 2024, https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2024/08/20/states-improve-how-they-assess-coastal-wetlands-impacts-to-reduce-climate-pollution.

For example, H.R. 5457/S. 2812, H.R. 9912, and S. 5369 in the 118^th Congress.

Kristensen et al., "Predicting Climate Mitigation Through Carbon Burial in Blue Carbon Ecosystems," p. 9.

Williams et al., 2022 North American Carbon Program Science Implementation Plan, p. 143.

Coleman, "Trump Moves to Hobble."

Previously introduced legislation includes H.R. 5457 and S. 2812; H.R. 10471; and S. 5629 in the 118^th Congress.

For example, Congress provided EPA the authority to lead federal agencies in the creation of an interagency action plan as part of its Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and to pass through funding to said federal agencies to support the plan's implementation (11 U.S.C. §1268(c)(7)(D)(ii)).

Energy Futures Initiative (EFI) Foundation, Clearing the Air: A Federal RD&D Initiative and Management Plan for Carbon Dioxide Removal Technologies, 2019, p. 155, https://efifoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2022/03/ClearingTheAir_Report_compressed.pdf (hereinafter EFI, Clearing the Air); and RAE, A National Blue Carbon Action Plan: Opportunities and Recommendations, 2022, p. 7, https://estuaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Blue-Carbon-National-Action-Plan-Final.pdf. For example, H.R. 10471, S. 2002, S. 5629 in the 118^th Congress focused on CDR and mCDR. H.R. 9912 and S. 3785 in the 118^th Congress focused on coastal blue carbon ecosystems.

For example, see Cross et al., Strategy for NOAA Carbon Dioxide Removal Research, pp. 76-77.

DOE, Draft CDR Purpose, Approaches, and Recommendations, p. xii. Introduced bills include H.R. 10471, S. 5629, and H.R. 10491 in the 118^th Congress.

Coleman, "Trump Moves to Hobble."

E.O. 14217, "Commencing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy," 90 Federal Register 10577, February 19, 2025 (hereinafter E.O. 14217, "Commencing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy"). For federal advisory committees terminated since the release of the executive order, see Government Services Administration, "FACADATABASE.gov," https://www.facadatabase.gov/FACA/s/account/Account/00Bt0000001I5GFEA0.

NASEM, "Chapter 9: Synthesis and Research Strategy," p. 245.

DOE, Draft CDR Purpose, Approaches, and Recommendations, pp. xviii and 37.

See section entitled "Federal Agency Research Coordination and Collaboration on Coastal Blue Carbon Ecosystems."

The Blue Carbon Initiative, "Blue Carbon Scientific Working Group," https://www.thebluecarboninitiative.org/scientific-working-group.

Juliette Portala and David Matthews, "Europe Scrambles to Help Researchers Escape Trump," March 20, 2025, Science Business, https://sciencebusiness.net/international-news/europe-scrambles-help-researchers-escape-trump.

Previously introduced bills include H.R. 5457 and S. 2812; H.R. 9912; and H.R. 10471 and S. 5629 in the 118^th Congress.

DOE, FY2025 Congressional Justification, Volume 2, pp. 237-244, https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2024-03/doe-fy-2025-budget-vol-2-v4.pdf. A crosscut budget is typically a document that organizes and reports the activities and funding of several entities working within the same broad initiative in a way that cuts across organizational boundaries.

EFI, Clearing the Air, p. 157.

For an example of a crosscut budget report focused on actual spending, see OMB, Chesapeake Bay Restoration Spending Crosscut: Report to Congress, October 2024, https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/2024-Chesapeake-Bay-Crosscut-Report.pdf. Previously introduced bills that would track proposed or actual spending include H.R. 9912 and S. 2002 in the 118^th Congress.

EFI, Clearing the Air, p. 81.

Cross et al., Strategy for NOAA Carbon Dioxide Removal Research, p. 47.

For example, as proposed in U.S. Congress, House Appropriations Committee, Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2025, Report Together with Minority Views to Accompany H.R. 9026, 118^th Cong., 2^nd sess., July 11, 2024, H.Rept. 118-582, p. 29; and H.R. 7106 in the 118^th Congress.

DOE, Draft CDR Purpose, Approaches, and Recommendations, pp. 49-50.

Stephen M. Smith et al., The State of Carbon Dioxide Removal 2024-2^nd Edition, 2024, pp. 31-32. Hereinafter Smith et al., State of CDR.

Smith et al., State of CDR, p. 32.

Smith et al., State of CDR, pp. 34 and 219.

NASEM, "Chapter 2: Coastal Blue Carbon," pp. 76-77. Funding would be spread across DOE, EPA, FS, FWS, NASA, NOAA, NSF, and USACE.

EFI, Clearing the Air, p. 192. Funding would be spread across NASA, NOAA, NSF, and USACE.

EFI, Clearing the Air, p. 156. Previously introduced legislation to do so includes H.R. 5457 and S. 2812; H.R. 9912; H.R. 10471; S. 5629; and H.R. 10491 in the 118^th Congress.

For example, Daniel A. Friess et al., "Capitalizing on the Global Financial Interest in Blue Carbon," PLOS Climate, vol. 1, no. 8 (2022); and DOE, Draft CDR Purpose, Approaches, and Recommendations, p. 53; and Smith et al., State of CDR, p. 57.

E.O. 14154, "Unleashing American Energy;" and E.O. 14217, "Commencing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy."

Williams et al., 2022 North American Carbon Program Science Implementation Plan, p. 143.

For example, Congress provided EPA the authority to pass through funding from its Great Lakes Restoration Initiative to other federal agencies involved in the effort, in line with an interagency action plan (33 U.S.C. §1268(c)(7)(D)(ii)).